Intervention for dysarthria associated with acquired brain

Transcription

injury in children and adolescents (Review)
Morgan AT, Vogel AP
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library
2008, Issue 3
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Intervention for dysarthria associated with acquired brain injury in children and adolescents (Review)
Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHAT’S NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
2
2
4
4
5
5
7
8
8
11
12
12
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
i
[Intervention Review]
injury in children and adolescents
Angela T Morgan1 , Adam P Vogel2
1 Healthy
Development [Theme], Language & Literacy, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 2 Centre for
Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Contact address: Angela T Morgan, Healthy Development [Theme], Language & Literacy, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,
Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, 3052, Australia. angela.morgan@mcri.edu.au.
Editorial group: Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group.
Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 3, 2008.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 22 February 2007.
Citation: Morgan AT, Vogel AP. Intervention for dysarthria associated with acquired brain injury in children and adolescents. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006279. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006279.pub2.
ABSTRACT
Background
The term ’acquired brain injury’ (ABI) incorporates a range of aetiologies including cerebrovascular accident, brain tumour and
traumatic brain injury. ABI is a common cause of disability in the paediatric population, and dysarthria is a common and often persistent
sequelae associated with ABI in children.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy of intervention delivered by Speech and Language Pathologists/Therapists targeting dysarthric speech in children
resulting from acquired brain injury.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 02/2007), CINAHL (1982 to 02/2007), EMBASE (1980 to 02/2007),
ERIC (1965 to 02/2007), Linguistics Abstracts Online (1985 to 02/07), PsycINFO (1872 to 02/2007). Additional references were
also sought from reference lists studies.
Selection criteria
The review considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental design studies of children aged 3-16 years with
acquired dysarthria grouped by aetiology (e.g., brain tumour, traumatic brain injury, cerebrovascular accident).
Data collection and analysis
Each author independently assessed the titles and abstracts for relevance (100% inter-rater reliability) and the full text version of all
potentially relevant articles was obtained. No studies met inclusion criteria.
Main results
Of 2091 titles and abstracts identified, full text versions of only three (Morgan 2007; Murdoch 1999; Netsell 2001) were obtained.
2088 were excluded, largely on the basis of not including dysarthria, being diagnostic or descriptive papers, and for concerning adults
rather than children. Morgan 2007 and Murdoch 1999 were excluded for not employing RCT or quasi-randomised methodology;
Netsell 2001 on the basis of being a theoretical review paper, rather than an intervention study. Five references were identified and
obtained from the bibliography of the Murdoch 1999 paper. All were excluded due to including populations without ABI, adults with
dysarthria, or inappropriate design. Thus, no studies met inclusion criteria.
1
Authors’ conclusions
The review demonstrates a critical lack of studies, let alone RCTs, addressing treatment efficacy for dysarthria in children with ABI.
Possible reasons to explain this lack of data include i) a lack of understanding of the characteristics or natural history of dysarthria
associated with this population; ii) the lack of a diagnostic classification system for children precluding the development of well targeted
intervention programs; and iii) the heterogeneity of both the aetiologies and resultant possible dysarthria types of paediatric ABI. Efforts
should first be directed at modest well-controlled studies to identify likely efficacious treatments that may then be trialed in multicentre collaborations using quasi-randomised or RCT methodology.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Controlled studies for treatment of dysarthia associated with acquired brain injury in childhood urgently required
Dysarthria is a disorder of speech production that can make it harder for people to be understood by others. Dysarthria is a common
and often chronic outcome associated with brain injury suffered in childhood (also known as paediatric acquired brain injury (ABI) ).
This research examines the efficacy of treatment for dysarthria in children following ABI.
Although this research reports that positive gains have been reported from a case-based study of a child with dysarthria following ABI
(specifically with traumatic brain injury), there are currently too few studies performed in this area to draw any conclusions about
the efficacy of treatment for dysarthria in children and teenagers. This review therefore calls for Speech Language Pathologists/Speech
Language Therapists (SLPs/SLTs) working in this area to perform studies of the natural history and treatment efficacy of this group.
BACKGROUND
Description of the condition
The term ’Acquired Brain Injury’ (ABI) encompasses a wide range
of aetiologies within the paediatric population with neurological
injury, including diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident and brain
tumour. The largest population however, is commonly children
who have sustained a traumatic brain injury such as that incurred
in a fall or motor vehicle accident (Parslow 2005). The incidence
of paediatric acquired brain injury is significant, with reports of up
to two hundred and eighty per 100,000 children being admitted
to hospital with traumatic brain injury in the UK alone each year
(Hawley 2003).
The high incidence of acquired brain injury in children is of major
public concern, as it is the most frequent cause of acquired disability in children, leaving a large proportion of those who survive
with multiple long-term impairments (Tennant 1995; Michaud
1993). One chronic impairment commonly associated with ABI is
a form of speech disorder called dysarthria (Cahill 2002; Cornwell
2003a; Cornwell 2003b).
Dysarthria is a motor speech disorder that may affect the range,
rate, strength and co-ordination of the muscles used for speech.
This problem may affect multiple subsystems required for accurate
speech production including: articulation, resonance, prosody, respiration and phonation (Van Mourik 1997). Specific characteristics of dysarthria following ABI may include: imprecise consonant production and vowel distortion, abnormal resonance (hyper, hypo or mixed nasality), monopitch, monoloudness, changes
in speaking rate, and poor respiratory support for speech (Cahill
2004; Cahill 2005; Morgan 2007; Murdoch 1999). Dysarthria
can significantly affect the intelligibility of speech, resulting in the
child with dysarthria often being misunderstood and experiencing communication breakdown. This communication breakdown
may have negative affects on a child’s education, socialisation, potential for later employment, and hence participation in and contribution to society.
Intelligibility is defined as the degree to which a speaker can be
understood by the listener (Yorkston 1996), and ratings of intelligibility therefore tell us how a speech disorder impacts upon the
ability of a given person to communicate (DeBodt 2002).
There is debate regarding whether children and adults present with
similar features of dysarthria. A review of studies reporting the
clinical presentation of childhood acquired dysarthria concluded
that there were no definite similarities between adult and paediatric clinical presentations of dysarthria in the literature published
between 1980-1997 (Van Mourik 1997). In contrast, others have
reported similar features of dysarthria between children and adults
2
(Cahill 2004). Even if features of the disorder are similar between
these populations, it would be anticipated that dysarthria in children is further complicated by a variety of developmental issues.
Paediatric dysarthria occurs in a context of brain maturation, rapid
physical growth, and cognitive and psychosocial development. In
addition, children are still acquiring their sound production system, and the oral musculature and quality of oral movements
change during development (Qvarnstrom 1994). Thus the features of childhood dysarthria following brain injury, and the potential benefit of particular speech treatments should not be extrapolated from the adult literature.
Description of the intervention
There is currently a push for evidence-based practice and accountability of practice in regard to all aspects of health treatment. Despite this fact, there is very little evidence base for the
treatment of paediatric dysarthria following ABI. Existing techniques are reported for use with the adult population and are
largely based on traditional perceptual models of speaker-based
treatment techniques including drills to improve stress or intonation based on improving breath capacity or altering breath pattern
(Bellaire 1986; Rosenbek 1991; Yorkston 1988; Yorkston 1999),
treatment designed to alter rate control (Beukelman 1978; Crow
1989; Helm 1979) or adjust speech movement patterns to help
produce a perceptibly more intelligible speech outcome (Yorkston
1988; Yorkston 1999), and programs aiming to increase vocal intensity such as the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (Ramig 1995).
Traditional speech therapy based in the community remains largely
subjective and non-quantitative, i.e. a clinician will train a child
to improve their speech sounds as rated using auditory-based, or
perceptual outcomes of speech (Dagenais 1995; Secord 1989).
The perceptually-based systems such as those listed above have
merit in that they are based on representing the actual speech output, which is what the listener attends to (Wood 1999). However, there are many problems with over-reliance on subjective perceptual approaches for measuring and treating disordered speech.
One example of issues with perceptual approaches is the use of
diagnosis using traditional phonetic transcription systems highlighted by Wood and Hardcastle (Wood 1999). There is a tendency for clinicians to favour ’categorical’ errors (e.g. sound substitutions like saying ’pin’ when the person meant to say ’bin’),
over ’non-categorical’ errors (e.g. when sounds are actually distorted so /d/ may be produced in a prolonged and imprecise manner) (Ziegler 1989). Children with dysarthria most commonly experience sound distortions, the errors that are most often poorly
transcribed by clinicians, demonstrating the unreliability of traditional auditory-based techniques for treating this population. If
a clinician trained in listening to speech is unable to detect subtle differences such as those heard in dysarthria, then the use of
such perceptually based techniques bodes poorly for the client who
would also inevitably not be able to correctly hear and define and
rectify their own disorder based on auditory feedback alone. As
afore-mentioned however, despite the lack of objectivity, perceptual evaluation retains optimal face validity, and is the primary
assessment tool used by speech-language pathologists. Moreover,
current instrumental assessment options lack the applicability and
ease of use offered by perceptual judgements.
There have been attempts to make the treatment, and the outcome measures for rating adult treatment for dysarthria, objective
and quantifiable by using instrumental techniques such as electropalatography (EPG) (Hardcastle 1985), or the VisiPitch© (Kay
Elemetrics) or Speech Viewer © (Bougle 1995). EPG for example, requires the participant to wear a custom-made acrylic mould
of the individual’s hard palate that is embedded with 62 sensor
electrodes. The electrodes record tongue contact with the palate
during speech. This technique is unique because it provides a dynamic visual presentation of lingual movements that could not
previously be seen by clinicians or individuals with speech impairment (Hardcastle 1991; Hardcastle 1985). The additional visual
feedback provided by EPG during speech therapy may be particularly beneficial in treating patient’s following brain injury because
these patients often have difficulties with understanding verbal or
auditory instructions, which are traditionally used by clinicians in
remediation programs (Chapman 2001; Yorkston 1997). Visual
biofeedback techniques provide a more tangible or concrete example of the patient’s speech pattern for remediation avoiding the
need for complex instructions. Whilst both the traditional perceptually-based and instrumentally based biofeedback techniques
have been advocated for the remediation of speech disorders due
to brain damage in adults, there have been few investigations of
treatment efficacy for children with speech disorders due to brain
injury, and we cannot assume that the same principles and practices can be successfully applied to the paediatric population. It
is also not known how age, severity of brain injury, site of brain
lesion not severity of dysarthria impact upon treatment success.
Why it is important to do this review
Dysarthria is a common and often persistent sequelae of traumatic
brain injury that may impact upon an individual’s quality of life,
and in their ability to participate in society. To date there has
been no investigation of the effectiveness of perceptual and instrumental treatments for dysarthria in the paediatric population
with acquired brain injury. Given the variety of developmental
stressors such as neurological maturation, and maturation of the
subsystems of speech production (e.g. lips, tongue, etc), we cannot extrapolate the findings of adult investigations in this area to
the paediatric population. Therefore, it is the aim of the current
paper to systematically review evidence on the efficacy treatment
for dysarthria in the paediatric population with acquired brain injury through the evaluation of quasi-randomised and randomised
controlled trials.
3
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of intervention delivered by Speech and Language Pathologists/Therapists targeting dysarthric speech in children resulting from acquired brain injury.
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) studies and quasi-randomised design studies (e.g., studies in which participants were
allocated on alternate days) were considered for inclusion in this
review.
prosody and respiration or a combination of any of these areas
typically affected by dysarthria:
1. At the isolated function level of speech production, e.g. a reduction in single phoneme or sound production duration during
articulation.
2. At the single word or sentence level of general speech production, e.g. improvement in rate of single word reading.
3. At the broader level of speech production where outcomes
demonstrate functional gains in communication, e.g. improvement in timing of spontaneous speech; reported improvement in
speech rate via child or parent report of speech function.
Both standardised and informal outcome measures were considered for evaluation, including clinician, parent or child questionnaire reports on outcome. Outcome measures for all features of
dysarthria (i.e. nasality; articulation; laryngeal function; respiratory function) were be considered
Search methods for identification of studies
Types of participants
Children aged 3-16 years with acquired dysarthria. Participants
were intended to be grouped together by aetiology, (e.g., posterior
fossa tumour, other tumours/gliomas, TBI post-fall, TBI postRTA etc) and paediatric populations with co-morbid conditions
such as cognitive or language impairment were to be included in
the review.
Types of interventions
1) Perceptually-based therapy: Intervention using traditional drill
exercises without instrumentation in the absence of feedback other
than auditory feedback, and typically in the absence of using any
instrumentation e.g., exercises of the lips or tongue to increase the
rate, strength, range or co-ordination of the musculature supporting articulation; drill breathing exercises to increase respiratory/
breath support for speech; voicing drills to increase the loudness
of phonation, etc.
2) Instrumentally-based biofeedback approaches: Interventions
that use some form of instrumentation and that provide visual
or other forms of biofeedback in addition to auditory feedback
(e.g., electropalatography; kinematics; visual biofeedback acoustic
treatment).
Control groups could include no treatment or wait-list control.
Electronic searches
The following databases were searched:
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),
published in The Cochrane Library searched Issue 4, 2006
MEDLINE searched 1966 to January 2007
CINAHL searched 1982 to December 2006
EMBASE searched 1980 to January 2007
ERIC searched 1966 to January 2007
Linguistics Abstracts Online searched 1985 to January 2007
PsycINFO searched 1872 to January 2007
The search strategies used for search the databases can be found
in: Appendix 2; Appendix 3; Appendix 4; Appendix 5; Appendix
6; Appendix 7; Appendix 8.
Searching other resources
We requested information on unpublished trials from authors of
published studies, and experts and information groups in the areas
of linguistics and speech therapy.
Data collection and analysis
Types of outcome measures
Selection of studies
Primary outcomes
Titles and abstracts were independently screened for inclusion by
both authors (AV) and (AM). In cases of uncertainly over whether
an abstract met the inclusion criterion by either author, the full text
article was obtained. Each paper was then evaluated independently
by the two reviewers (AV) and (AM) for inclusion. In the event
Three levels of outcomes were considered for analysis used to measure change (Law 2003) in articulation, phonation, resonance,
4
of disagreement over inclusion of a particular paper, a consensus
was formed by AV and AM re-assessing the inclusion criterion
together.
Data extraction and management
No studies met inclusion criteria for this review. For details of
methods from the protocol which have been archived for use in
future updates of this review, see Appendix 1.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
See Appendix 1.
Measures of treatment effect
See Appendix 1.
Dealing with missing data
See Appendix 1.
Results of the search
Of the 2091 titles and abstracts identified via the computer-generated search strategy, only three studies appeared to meet the inclusion criterion (Morgan 2007; Murdoch 1999; Netsell 2001)
and the full text versions of the papers were obtained. The remaining 2088 were excluded, largely on the basis of not including dysarthria; being diagnostic or descriptive (i.e., not treatment
studies); and for being adult and not child-based. The three full
text articles were examined by AM and AV, and the Netsell 2001
paper was excluded as it was a treatment review paper and not an
intervention study. The Morgan 2007 and Murdoch 1999 paper
were excluded as the study designs was not RCT or quasi-experimental. A further six citations were identified from the Murdoch
1999 paper and obtained. AM and AV then evaluated the titles and
abstracts of these additional citations and determined that none
of the papers met criterion for inclusion, i.e. the population was
not appropriate (Gallegos 1992); the study examined adults with
dysarthria and not children (Simpson 1988; Thompson-Ward
1997), or the study was not an RCT/quasi-randomised study
(Horton 1997; Workinger 1992). Therefore no study met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review. Inter-rater reliability
for inclusion was 100% between AM and AV.
Assessment of heterogeneity
See Appendix 1.
Risk of bias in included studies
Not applicable.
Assessment of reporting biases
See Appendix 1.
Effects of interventions
Data synthesis
There are currently no quasi-randomised or randomised studies
in this field. Therefore no study met the eligibility criteria for
inclusion in the review.
See Appendix 1.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
See Appendix 1.
Sensitivity analysis
See Appendix 1.
RESULTS
Description of studies
See: Characteristics of excluded studies.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the present review was to investigate the effectiveness of speech intervention for children aged three to sixteen years
old with dysarthria following acquired brain injury. No study met
the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the present review, i.e. there
are currently no quasi-experimental or RCT studies in this field.
In the absence of quasi-experimental or RCT studies in this field,
one example of best evidence to date is the Murdoch 1999 paper
(Murdoch 1999). This single-case ABAB study compared traditional (B1) and instrumental biofeedback (B2) therapy techniques.
Respiration or speech breathing treatment was evaluated in a 12.5
year old child who had sustained left parietal lobe damage due to a
motor vehicle accident, two and half years prior to the study commencement. The participant had a chronic mixed spastic-ataxic-
5
flaccid dysarthria with severely impaired respiratory function being the predominant features. The main goals of the therapy were
to: i) increase the participant’s control of inhalation and exhalation, and ii) improve the participant’s co-ordination of phonation
and exhalation. Following treatment, the authors suggested that
the real-time continuous biofeedback treatment was not only effective, but superior to traditional therapy in the modification of
speech breathing patterns for their case with persistent dysarthria
following severe TBI. They conclude that a physiological biofeedback treatment approach is potentially useful for the remediation
of speech breathing impairment in children with dysarthria.
This single case study was well designed overall with the child acting as their own control against a comparison of two treatment
methods. Methodological strengths of the study include adequate
reporting of the baseline assessment characteristics, and the reporting of missing or unanalysable data. Furthermore, the treatment
methods were outlined in extensive detail and would enable replication of most components of the study. More prescriptive detail
could have been provided about the steps in the progression along
the speech and non-speech hierarchy however, and the specific
number of items administered within each level of the hierarchy.
The participant was assessed with a comprehensive battery of both
physiological and perceptual tools at multiple time-points. Whilst
it is useful to investigate the impact of treating a specific deficit on
other areas of performance, the large number of varied assessments
performed frequently weakened the statistical power of this case
study. Perhaps a more beneficial statistical method of evaluating
treatment efficacy with multiple baseline assessments on a single
case would be to perform ANOVAs on a small number of well
defined speech outcomes. This method was used successfully by
Hartelius 2005 to investigate the efficacy of EPG treatment in a
single adult case with dysarthria.
Interestingly, outcome measures used in this study (Murdoch
1999) were based at the impairment level of speech production,
and were conducted by the clinician in a clinical setting only.
There were no outcome measures of activity or handicap, or other
functional everyday measures of communication, no evaluation of
speech function in varying communicative contexts more naturalistic to the child (i.e. school, home), and no measures rated by the
child or the child’s parent/caregiver. There has been an increasing
drive to address functional speech outcomes beyond the level of
impairment for over a decade (Yorkston 1996). Both the fields of
paediatric developmental (Hustad 2002, Hustad 2003) or adult
acquired dysarthria (Yorkston 1996, Yorkston 1999) have focused
on addressing variables external to the person with dysarthria, including listener variables of comprehension of the speech signal,
in addition to other environmental factors (e.g., noise level and
barriers to participant in various contexts). Future systematic treatment efficacy studies should address functional issues issues external to the speaker (i.e. impact of treatment on the listener’s ability
to comprehend the individual) and impairment level (e.g., ratings
of participation and activity) (WHO 2002). As aforementioned
however, it is important to balance rating multiple outcomes with
appropriate statistical power.
An obvious reason for the lack of studies, particularly RCTs, in
this particular field is likely related to the heterogeneous nature of
both the ABI and the resultant dysarthria in this group. Clearly
there are misgivings related to a single subject design, including
poor generalisability of study findings to the wider population
with dysarthria post-ABI. However the heterogeneous nature of
ABI means that researchers will need to think laterally in terms
of RCT design and will likely need to collaborate across centres
at a national or international level in order to match groups of
homogeneous participants. Conducting even a multi-centre RCT
with participants matched on relevant variables such as neural lesion site however, may still be ambitious given that lesions within
a similar brain region may still cause differential behavioural outcomes (e.g., damage to the cortical region of the inferior frontal
gyrus, or posterior Broca’s area, may in some cases be contained
to this region, and in other cases damage to the white matter may
also occur and disrupt connectivity between further regions in the
brain).
Another possible reason to explain the critical lack of treatment
studies in this area is the absence of a paediatric-based classification system for dysarthria associated with ABI. There is currently no comprehensive child-focused diagnostic system for rating dysarthria (e.g., no child-based equivalent of the MAYO clinic
or Darley 1969ab dysarthria classification system). The lack of a
diagnostic system may in turn be due to a lack of data on the
natural history of speech outcome following ABI in children. The
majority of paediatric studies have focused on dysarthria following cerebellar tumour, and rather than focusing on all forms of
dysarthria post-ABI in this group, researchers have been more
heavily focused on the select group of children with mutism and
subsequent dysarthria following surgical removal of cerebellar tumour (see De Smet 2007 for review). There have been even fewer
studies of speech outcome or recovery in other ABI groups, with
only a handful of studies investigating the natural history or features of children with TBI (Cahill 2002; Cahill 2004), and no
thorough descriptions of speech function following CVA.
Not only have the speech outcomes of these populations been
poorly described, but even fewer studies have made attempts to systematically and prospectively examine the neural outcome related
to speech outcome, despite the very cause of acquired dysarthria
being due to neural damage in this population. An exception to
this weakness in the field is the work of Richter 2005 and Ozimek
2004 in children with cerebellar tumour. These groups combine
neuroimaging and speech data to aid understanding of the underlying basis of speech behaviour. A failure to address the neural basis
of speech outcome is a further likely reason for the lack of a development of at least an equivalent neurobehavioural speech classification system to the adult-based MAYO clinic model. Without
6
an appropriate model with which to identify areas of speech impairment, it is difficult to determine appropriate treatment targets,
and subsequently it is challenging to develop suitable treatment
approaches, let alone measure their effectiveness
A further challenge in determining efficacious interventions is our
lack of understanding of the propensity for recovery or rehabilitation of speech function in these patients. We have very little
understanding of the characteristics/natural history/recovery patterns of this paediatric population. At the present time we are unable to predict which patients will recover versus those that will
have chronic persistent communication impairment. Nor do we
understand the time factors involved in recovery or improvement
of speech function. As a result, we do not understand the extent to
which we can effect change, or rehabilitate speech production. In
addition, we have little understanding of the optimal time frame
for intervention for these patients. Longitudinal natural history or
observational studies are required to provide data on factors predicting the presence and recovery versus persistence of dysarthria
associated with ABI. This information will enable a crucial first
step in treatment planning, i.e. to determine whether sub-groups
of patients should receive rehabilitative versus compensatory versus alternative communication approaches.
A final factor impacting upon the lack of treatment evidence in
this particular field (paediatric dysarthria) relates more broadly
to the profession of SLP/SLT. Like many other professions allied
to medicine, a true push for evidence-based practice in SLP/SLT
has really only occurred over the last decade. The recent nature
of this drive is evidenced by the term ‘evidence-based practice’
only appearing in association with SLP/SLT in papers from 2001
only (when using search engines relevant to allied-health professions, i.e., PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Academic Search Premier).
This awakening of the need for evidence-based practice within
the profession has brought with it an increased focus on teaching research methodologies, and on encouraging clinical-research
within academic institutions training SLPs/SLTs. Similarly within
health-based services in particular, there has been an increasing
focus on the development of policies and protocols, underpinned
by evidence, to guide clinical practice. As a rule this research focus
and culture is more advanced in adult health care settings, and is
only in the early stages of development within the paediatric health
care setting. One advancement in child-focused research culture
is that major paediatric tertiary hospitals (settings where children
with dysarthria are commonly seen, at least in the acute stages of
care) now commonly have established research governance policies and supports. Community, education or private-sector paediatric settings however are typically further behind in establishing a
research culture. The presence of a limited research culture across
many clinical settings highlights a significant problem given that
the department in which an SLP/SLT works has been demonstrated to impact upon their use of research (Pennington 2005).
A number of authors have reported on the barriers and issues to
be considered in implementing research and EBP in the SLP/SLT
profession (Kent 2006; Ratner 2006; Reilly 2004; Zipoli 2005).
The impacts of these broader research training and support issues
on the lack of evidence in this field must be considered.
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice
The present review is unable to draw any conclusions on the efficacy of treatment methods for children aged three to sixteen years
with dysarthria associated with ABI, as there are currently no RCTs
or quasi-experimental studies in this field. The example of best
evidence in this field was a case study (Murdoch 1999) that descriptively reported an improvement in speech function following
traditional and biofeedback treatment for speech breathing. Further research is desperately needed in this field however, before any
treatment methods can be definitively advocated for use in clinical
practice.
Clinicians managing individuals with paediatric dysarthria should
be empowered to engage in research through establishing links
with local research-focused centres (e.g., academic institutions).
Implications for research
Performing large scale ‘natural history’ studies, or studies that track
dysarthric speech outcome from the acute care setting through to
outpatient rehabilitation and in the longer-term are a necessary
step to help us understand this group. Specific areas for further
investigation include: predictive factors associated with ABI that
result in dysarthria, factors predicting the persistence versus recovery of dysarthria, the relationship between underlying neural
lesion and speech outcome, the relationship between age at onset
of injury and outcome, and the relationship between co-morbid
impairments (e.g., motor, cognition, language) and speech outcome. The provision of this data may also help in determining a
paediatric-based diagnostic system for dysarthria associated with
ABI.
There is a critical need for further studies of treatment efficacy
for dysarthria in children post-ABI. Careful thought should be
applied to the design of treatments for this challenging patient
group. RCTs will be difficult to design given the heterogeneity of
not only the nature and type of ABI, but also in relation to the
likely complex dysarthria outcome. Natural history studies will
inform the eligibility criterion for sub-groupings for RCTs in the
future.
Future studies may investigate numerous treatment and treatment
outcome variables common across many speech and language populations (Law 2003) to increase our understanding of treatment
response in this population, including:
7
• outcome measures of interest (e.g., across one or more areas
of impairment participation and activity)
• type of treatment and level of breakdown treated (e.g.,
traditional versus biofeedback, rehabilitative versus
compensatory versus alternative communicative interventions,
treatment at the impairment versus activity versus handicap level,
treating speaker variables or listener variables, etc)
• duration and intensity of treatment (e.g., intervention
once/week over a year or 10 sessions over two weeks)
• response of particular sub-groups of participants to
treatment (e.g., sub-groups based on age, specific site of brain
lesion, or dependent upon similarity of co-morbid non-linguistic
factors (e.g., gross and fine motor or cognitive outcome)
• impact of timing of treatment (e.g., intervention during the
first three months in the acute period versus in the longer-term
at one year post-injury)
• the effect of the administrator of treatment (e.g., clinician,
parent or participant administered therapy)
• the environment in which treatment is administered (e.g.,
clinical setting, school, community)
• generalisation factors (e.g., impact of treating one
component of the speech system on other facets of speech
production; or the generalisation of treating speech in the school
setting to the community setting, etc)
• the impact of dysarthria severity on treatment outcome
• the impact of non-linguistic co-morbid features (e.g.,
cognition, motor) on treatment outcome
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Jane Dennis of the University of Bristol, Professor Geraldine Macdonald of Queen’s University, Belfast (UK),
and Professor James Law of Queen Margaret University College,
Scotland, for their support and guidance throughout the review
development process.
REFERENCES
References to studies excluded from this review
Gallegos 1992 {published data only}
Gallegos K, Medina R, Espinoza E. Electromyographic
feedback in the treatment of bilateral facial paralysis: a case
study. Journal of Behaviorual Medicine 1992;15:533–9.
Horton 1997 {published data only}
Horton SK, Murdoch BE, Theodoros DG, Thompson
EC. Motor speech impairment in a case of childhood
basilar artery stroke: treatment directions derived from
physiological and perceptual assessment. Pediatric
Rehabilitation 1997;1:163–77.
Morgan 2007 {published data only}
Morgan AT, Ligeois F, Occomore L. Electropalatography
treatment for articulation impairment in children with
dysarthria post-traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2007;
21(11):1183–93.
Murdoch 1999 {published data only}
Murdoch BE, Pitt G, Theodoros DG, Ward E. Real-time
continuous visual biofeedback in the treatment of speech
breathing disorders following childhood traumatic brain
injury: report of one case. Pediatric Rehabilitation 1999;3:
5–20.
Netsell 2001 {published data only}
Netsell R. Speech aeromechanics and the dysarthrias:
Implications or children with traumatic brain injury.
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2001;16(5):421–5.
Simpson 1988 {published data only}
Simpson MB, Till JA, Goff AM. Long term treatment of
severe dysarthria: a case study. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders 1988;53:433–40.
Thompson-Ward 1997 {published data only}
Thompson-Ward EC, Murdoch BE, Stokes PD.
Biofeedback rehabilitation of speech breathing for an
individual with dysarthria: a case study. Journal of Medical
Speech/Language Pathology 1997;5:277–88.
Workinger 1992 {published data only}
Workinger M, Netsell R. Restoration of intelligible speech
13 years post-head injury. Brain Injury 1992;6:183–7.
Additional references
Bellaire 1986
Bellaire K, Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. Modification
of breath patterning to increase naturalness of a mildly
dysarthric speaker. Journal of Communication Disorders
1986;19:271–280.
Beukelman 1978
Beukelman DR, Yorskton KM. Communication options
for patients with brainstem lesions. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 1978;59:337–340.
Bougle 1995
Bougle F, Ryalls J, Le Dorze G. Improving fundamental
frequency modulation in head trauma patients: A
preliminary comparison of speech-language therapy
conducted with and without IBM’s Speech Viewer. Folia
Phoniatrica Logopaedia 1995;47:24–32.
8
Cahill 2002
Cahill L, Murdoch B, Theodoros D. Perceptual analysis of
speech following traumatic brain injury in childhood. Brain
Injury 2002;16(5):415–46.
Cahill 2004
Cahill LM, Turner AB, Stabler PA. Addis PE, Theodoros
DG, Murdoch BE. An evaluation of continuous positive
airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in the treatment of
hypernasality following traumatic brain injury. A report of
3 cases. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2004;19(3):
241–53.
Cahill 2005
Cahill LM, Murdoch BE, Theodoros DG. Articulatory
function following traumatic brain injury in childhood: a
perceptual and instrumental analysis. Brain Injury 2005;19
(1):41–58.
Chapman 2001
Chapman SB, McKinnon L, Levin HS, Song J, Meier
MC, Chiu S. Longitudinal outcome of verbal discourse in
children with traumatic brain injury: three-year followup. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2001;16(5):
441–455.
Cornwell 2003a
Cornwell PL, Murdoch BE, Ward EC, Morgan AT.
Dysarthria and dysphagia following treatment for a fourth
ventricle choroid plexus papilloma. Journal of Clinical
Neuroscience 2003;10(4):506–512.
Cornwell 2003b
Cornwell PL, Murdoch BE, Ward EC, Morgan AT.
Dysarthria and dysphagia as long-term sequelae in a child
treated for posterior fossa tumour. Pediatric Rehabilitation
2003;6(2):67–75.
Crow 1989
Crow E, Enderby P. The effects of an alphabet chart on the
speaking rate and intelligibility of speakers with dysarthric.
In: K.M. Yorkston, D.R. Beukelman editor(s). Recent
Advances in Clinical Dysarhtria. Boston: College-Hill Press,
1989:99–107.
Dagenais 1995
Dagenais PA. Electropalatography in the treatment
of articulation/phonological disorders. Journal of
Communication Disorders 1995;28:303–29.
De Smet 2007
De Smet HJ, Baillieux H, Catsman-Berrevoets C, De
Deyn PP, Marien P, Paquier PF. Postoperative motor speech
production in children with the syndrome of cerebellar
mutism and subsequent dysarthria: A critical review of the
literature. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 2007;
11:193–207.
DeBodt 2002
DeBodt MS, Hernandez-Diaz Hiuci ME, Van De Heyning
PH. Intelligibility as a linear combination of dimensions
in dysarthric speech. Journal of Communication Disorders
2002;35:283–292.
Hardcastle 1985
Hardcastle WJ, MorganBarry RA, Clark CJ. Articulatory
and voicing characteristics of adult dysarthric and verbal
dyspraxic speakers: An instrumental study. British Journal
of Disorders of Communication 1985;20:249–270.
Hardcastle 1991
Hardcastle WJ, Gibbon FE, Jones W. Visual display
of tongue-palate contact: Electropalatography in the
assessment and remediation of speech disorders. British
Journal of Disorders of Communication 1991;26:41–74.
Hartelius 2005
Hartelius L, McAuliffe MJ, Murdoch BE, Theodoros
DG. The use of electropalatography in the treatment of
disordered articulation in traumatic brain injury: a case
study. Speech Motor Control in Normal and Disordered
Speech. 4th International Speech Motor Conference.
Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Vantilt, 2001:
192–5.
Hawley 2003
Hawley CA, Ward AB, Long J, Owen DQ, Magnay AR.
Prevalence of traumatic brain injury amongst children
admitted to hospital in one health district: A populationbased study. Injury:International Journal of the Care of the
Injured 2003;34:256–260.
Helm 1979
Helm NA. Management of palilalia with a pacing board.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1979;44:350–353.
Higgins 2002
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in
a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:1539–1558.
Higgins 2008
Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0 [updated February
2008]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org: The
Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
Hustad 2002
Hustad KC, Beukelman DR. Listener comprehension of
severely dysarthria speech: effects of linguistic cues and
stimulus cohesion. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing
Research 2002;45:545–58.
Hustad 2003
Hustad KC, Jones R, Dailey S. Implementing speech
supplementation strategies: Effects on intelligibility and
speech rate of individuals with chronic severe dysarthria.
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2003;46:
464–74.
Kay Elemetrics
Kay Elemetrics Corporation. Visi-Pitch. Visi-pitch. Lincoln
Park, NJ: Kay Elemetrics Corp, nd.
Kent 2006
Kent RD. Evidence-based practice in communication
disorders: progress not perfection. Language Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools 2006;37(4):268–70.
9
Law 2003
Law J, Garrett Z, Nye C. Speech and language therapy
interentions for children with primary speech and language
delay or disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004110]
Michaud 1993
Michaud LJ, Duhaime AC, Batshaw ML. Traumatic brain
injury in children. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1993;
40(3):553–65.
Ozimek 2004
Ozimek A, Richter S, Hein-Kropp C, Schoch B, Gorissen B,
Kaiser O, Gizewski E, Ziegler W, Timmann D. Cerebellar
mutism- report of four cases. Journal of Neurology 2004;
251:963–72.
Parslow 2005
Parslow RC, Morris KP, Tasker RC, Forsyth RJ, Hawley
CA. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in children
receiving intenstive care in the UK. Archives of Disability in
Childhood 2005;90(11):1182–1187.
Pennington 2005
Pennington L, Roddam H, Burton C, Russell I, Russell D.
Promoting research use in speech and language therapy: a
cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical
effectiveness and costs of two training strategies. Clinical
Rehabilitation 2005;19(4):387–97.
Qvarnstrom 1994
Qvarnstrom MJ, Jaroma SM, Laine MT. Changes in the
peripheral speech mechanism of children from the age of 7
to 10 years. Folia Phoniatr Logop 1994;46:193–202.
Ramig 1995
Ramig LE, Pawlas AA, Countryman S. The Lee Silverman
Voice Treatment. Iowa City: National Center for Voice and
Speech., 1995.
Ratner 2006
Ratner NB. Evidence-based practice: an examination of its
ramifications for the practice of speech-language pathology.
Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 2006;37(4):
257–67.
Reilly 2004
Reilly S. The challenges in making speech pathology
practice evidence based. International Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology 2004;6(2):113–24.
Richter 2005
Richter S, Schoch B, Ozimek A, Gorissen B, Hein-Kropp
C, Kaiser O, et al.Incidence of dysarthria in children with
cerebellar tumors: a prospective study. Brain and Language
2005;92:153–67.
Rosenbek 1991
Rosenbek JC, LaPointe LL. The dysarthrias: Description,
diagnosis, and treatment. In: D Johns editor(s). Clinical
Management of Neurogenic Communication Disorders. Little,
Brown & Co, 1991:97–152.
Secord 1989
Secord WA. The traditional approach to treatment. In:
N.A. Creaghead, P.W. Newman, & W.A. Secord editor(s).
Assessment and remediation of articulation and phonological
disorders. 2nd Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co, 1989.
Tennant 1995
Tennant A, Macdermott N, Neary D. The long-term
outcome of head injury: implications for service planning.
Brain Injury 1995;9(6):595–605.
Van Mourik 1997
Van Mourik M, Catsman-Berrevoets CE, Paquier PF,
Yousef-Bak E, van Dongen HR. Acquired childhood
dysarthria: Review of its clinical presentation. Pediatric
Neurology 1997;17(4):299–307.
WHO 2002
World Health Organisation (WHO). Towards a Common
Language for Functioning, Disability and Health ICF 2002.
Geneva: WHO, 2002.
Wood 1999
Wood S, Hardcastle WJ. Instrumentation in the assessment
and therapy of motor speech disorders: A survey of
techniques and case studies with EPG. In: I. Papathanasiou
editor(s). Acquired Neurogenic Communication Disorders.
London: Whurr Publishers, 1999:203–248.
Yorkston 1988
Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR, Bell KR. Clinical
Management of Dysarthric Speakers. Boston: Little, Brown
& Co, 1988.
Yorkston 1996
Yorkston JM, Strand EA, Kennedy MRT. Comprehensibility
of dysarthric speech: Implications for assessment and
treatment planning. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 5, 1, 55-66. 1990;5(1):55–66.
Yorkston 1997
Yorkston KM, Jaffe KM, Polissar NL, Liao S, Fay GC.
Written language production and neuropsychological
function in children with traumatic brain injury. Archives
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78(10):
1096–1102.
Yorkston 1999
Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR, Strand EA, Bell KR.
Management of Motor Speech Disorders in Children and
Adults. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, 1999.
Ziegler 1989
Ziegler W, Hoole P. A combined acoustic and perceptual
analysis of the tense-lax opposition in aphasic vowel
production. Aphasiology 1989;3:449–463.
Zipoli 2005
Zipoli RP, Kennedy M. Evidence-based practice among
speech-language pathologists: attitudes, utilization, and
barriers. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology
2005;14(3):208–20.
∗
Indicates the major publication for the study
10
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Study
Reason for exclusion
Gallegos 1992
Study examined participant with Moebius Syndrome not ABI
Horton 1997
Not quasi-experimental/RCT (case study)
Morgan 2007
Not quasi-experimental/RCT (case study series)
Murdoch 1999
Netsell 2001
No experimental treatment data included in study
Simpson 1988
Study examined adult participant with dysarthria
Thompson-Ward 1997
Study examined adult participant with dysarthria
Workinger 1992
11
DATA AND ANALYSES
This review has no analyses.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Methods for future updates
Data extraction and management
In addition to outcome data, the following information will be documented by both reviewers using a data management form to be
developed and piloted: participant details; setting (e.g., community clinic, school, hospital); type of intervention; length and frequency of
intervention; professions involved; duration of impairment; level of severity; co-morbidity; assessment tools employed. Any information
that is missing or unclear will be requested from the corresponding author. Outcome data will be independently entered on to RevMan
by (AV) and (AM) and a re-evaluation of the data and entries performed together by AV and AM to reach consensus on points of
disagreement
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Included trials will be evaluated against a number of criteria Both reviewers will assess and independently rate the risk of bias of
included studies for the aspects: Methodological quality was assessed independently by two review authors (AV and AM) according to
the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (Higgins 2008). Review authors independently assessed the risk of bias within each included
study based on the following six domains with ratings of ’Yes’ (low risk of bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’ (uncertain risk
of bias):
1. Sequence generation Was the method used to generate the allocation sequence was assessed to determine if it produced
comparable groups. Ratings: ’Yes’ (low risk of bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’ (uncertain risk of bias)
2. Allocation concealment Was the method used to conceal allocation sequence described in sufficient detail to assess whether
intervention schedules could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, recruitment. In the review authors’ judgment was allocation
adequately concealed? Ratings: ’Yes’ (low risk of bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’ (uncertain risk of bias)
3. Blinding Were any measures used to blind participants, personnel and outcome assessors described so as to assess knowledge of
any group as to which intervention a given participant might have received In the review authors’ judgment,: was knowledge of the
allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study? Ratings: ’Yes’ (low risk of bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’
(uncertain risk of bias)
4. Incomplete outcome data If studies do not report intention-to-treat analyses, we will madk attempts to obtain missing data by
contacting the study authors. Data on attrition and exclusions will be extracted and reported as well the numbers involved (compared
with total randomised), reasons for attrition/exclusion where reported or obtained from investigators, and any re-inclusions in
analyses performed by review authors. In the review authors’ judgment: were incomplete data dealt with adequately by the reviewers?
(See also ’Dealing with missing data’). Ratings: ’Yes’ (low risk of bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’ (uncertain risk of bias)
5. Selective outcome reporting Attempts will be made to assess the possibility of selective outcome reporting by investigators. In
the review authors’ judgment: are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? Ratings: ’Yes’ (low risk of
bias); ’No’ (high risk of bias) and ’Unclear’ (uncertain risk of bias)
6. Other sources of bias Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias?
Measures of treatment effect
Continuous data: To enable the combination of studies measuring the same outcome using different methods, continuous data will be
summarised using standardised mean differences.
Binary data: Binary outcomes are likely to be common in early reports within the field (e.g., improved outcome vs no change/worse).
Data will be analysed by calculation of the relative risk with a 95% confidence interval.
Dealing with missing data
Missing data will initially be sought via contact with the corresponding author. In regard to participant drop out, if the rate of attrition
reaches a 30% threshold in an included study, the study will be included in the systematic review but not in the meta-analysis . The
maximum allowed difference in the dropout rate between the two groups will be 10% before a study included in the review is excluded
from meta-analysis.
12
Assessment of heterogeneity
Consistency of results will be assessed by examining I-squared (Higgins 2002). I-squared is a quantity describing approximately the
proportion of variation in point estimates that is due to heterogeneity of a sample rather than error in sampling of the population. A
test of homogeneity will be used to determine that the heterogeneity is genuine. In the event of too few studies being available to make
this test feasible, a random effects model will be applied
Assessment of reporting biases
Where appropriate, the possibility that the study selection was affected by bias will be assessed using funnel plots to investigate any
relationship between effect size and study precision (closely related to sample size). Such a relationship could be due to publication or
related biases or due to systematic differences between small and large studies, or a statistical artefact of the chosen effect measure.
Data synthesis
Meta-analysis will be only performed where studies employ similar interventions and where study populations are clinically homogenous.
Appendix 2. MEDLINE search strategy
MEDLINE searched, via OVID, 1966 to January 2007
1 Dysarthria/
2 Speech Disorders/
3 ataxia.tw.
4 (dysarth$ or dysphon$ or anarth$ or dyspros$ or aphon$ or dyston$).tw.
5 ((speech or articulat$ or voice or vocal or communicat$) adj3 (disorder$ or impair$ or problem$ or difficult$)).tw.
6 ((phonat$ or prosod$ or intonat$ or respirat$) adj3 (disorder$ or impair$ or problem$ or difficult$)).tw.
7 or/1-6
8 Child/
9 Adolescent/
10 (child$ or girl$ or boy$ or pre school$ or preschool$ or adolescen$ or teen$).tw. (718291)
11 or/8-10
12 (rehabilitat$ or therap$ or train$ or management or assist$ or measure$ or assess$ or remedia$ or augment$ or recover$).tw.
13 technique$.tw.
14 12 or 13
15 7 and 11 and 14
16 randomized controlled trial.pt.
17 controlled clinical trial.pt.
18 randomized controlled trials.sh.
19 random allocation.sh.
20 double blind method.sh.
21 single-blind method.sh.
22 or/16-21 (394278)
23 (animals not human).sh.
24 22 not 23
25 clinical trial.pt.
26 exp Clinical Trials/
27 (clin$ adj25 trial$).ti,ab.
28 ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj25 (blind$ or mask$)).ti,ab.
29 placebos.sh.
30 placebo$.ti,ab.
31 random$.ti,ab.
32 research design.sh.
33 or/25-32
34 33 not 23
35 34 not 24
36 comparative study.sh.
37 exp Evaluation Studies/
13
38 follow up studies.sh.
39 prospective studies.sh.
40 (control$ or prospectiv$ or volunteer$).ti,ab.
41 or/36-40
42 41 not 23
43 42 not (24 or 35)
44 24 or 35 or 43
45 44 and 15
Appendix 3. CENTRAL search strategy
CENTRAL searched, via the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006
#1 MeSH descriptor Dysarthria explode all trees
#2 MeSH descriptor Speech Disorders, this term only
#3 (ataxia)
#4 (dysarth* or dysphon$ or anarth* or dyspros* aphon* or dyston*)
#5 (speech or articulat* or voice or vocal or communicat*) near/3 (disorder* or impair* or
problem* or difficult*)
#6 (phonat* or prosod* or intonat* or respirat*)near/3 (disorder* or impair* or problem* or
difficult*)
#7 (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6)
#8 (child near “MESH check words”)
#9 MeSH descriptor Adolescent explode all trees
#10 (child* or girl* or boy* or pre school* or preschool* or adolescen* or teen*)
#11 (#8 OR #9 OR #10)
#12 (rehabilitat* or therap* or train* or management or assist* or measure* or assess* or
remedia* or augment* or recover*)
#13 technique*
#14 (#12 OR #13)
#15 (#7 AND #11 AND and#14)
Appendix 4. CINAHL search strategy
CINAHL searched, via OVID, 1982 to December 2006
1 Dysarthria/
2 Speech Disorders/
3 ataxia.tw.
7 or/1-6
8 Child/
9 Adolescent/
10 (child$ or girl$ or boy$ or pre school$ or preschool$ or adolescen$ or teen$).tw.
11 or/8-10
13 technique$.tw.
14 12 or 13
15 7 and 11 and 14
16 randomi$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
17 clin$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
18 trial$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
14
19 (clin$ adj3 trial$).mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
20 singl$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
21 doubl$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
22 tripl$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
23 trebl$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
24 mask$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
25 blind$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
26 (20 or 21 or 22 or 23) and (24 or 25)
27 crossover.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
28 random$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
29 allocate$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
30 assign$.mp. [mp=title, subject heading word, abstract, instrumentation]
31 (random$ adj3 (allocate$ or assign$)).mp.
32 Random Assignment/
33 exp Clinical Trials/
34 exp Meta Analysis/
35 31 or 27 or 26 or 19 or 16 or 32 or 33 or 34
36 15 and 35
Appendix 5. EMBASE search strategy
EMBASE searched, via OVID, 1980 to January 2007
1 Dysarthria/
2 Speech Disorders/
3 ataxia.tw.
7 or/1-6
8 Child/
9 Adolescent/
10 (child$ or girl$ or boy$ or pre school$ or preschool$ or adolescen$ or teen$).tw.
11 or/8-10
13 technique$.tw.
14 12 or 13
15 7 and 11 and 14
16 clin$.tw.
17 trial$.tw.
18 (clin$ adj3 trial$).tw.
19 singl$.tw.
20 doubl$.tw.
21 trebl$.tw.
22 tripl$.tw.
23 blind$.tw.
24 mask$.tw.
25 ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj3 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.
26 randomi$.tw.
27 random$.tw.
28 allocat$.tw.
29 assign$.tw.
30 (random$ adj3 (allocat$ or assign$)).tw.
15
31 crossover.tw.
32 31 or 30 or 26 or 25 or 18
33 exp Randomized Controlled Trial/
34 exp Double Blind Procedure/
35 exp Crossover Procedure/
36 exp Single Blind Procedure/
37 exp RANDOMIZATION/
38 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 32
39 15 and 38
Appendix 6. ERIC search strategy
ERIC searched, via Dialog DataStar, 1966 to January 2007
1 ATAXIA.TI,AB.
2 (DYSARTH$ OR DYSPHON$ OR ANARTH$ OR DYSPROS$ OR APHON$ OR DYSTON$).TI,AB.
3 ((SPEECH OR ARTICULAT$ OR VOICE OR VOCAL OR COMMUNICAT$) NEAR (DISORDER$ OR IMPAIR$ OR
PROBLEM$ OR DIFFICULT$)).TI,AB.
4 ((PHONAT$ OR PROSOD$ OR INTONAT$ OR RESPIRAT$) NEAR (DISORDER$ OR IMPAIR$ OR PROBLEM$ OR
DIFFICULT$)).TI,AB.
5 (1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4).TI,AB.
6 (CHILD$ OR GIRL* OR BOY$ OR PRE ADJ SCHOOL$ OR ADOLESCEN$ OR TEEN$).TI,AB.
7 (REHABILITAT$ OR THERAP$ OR TRAIN$ OR MANAGEMENT$).TI,AB.
8 (ASSIST$ OR MEASURE$ OR ASSESS$ OR REMEDIA$ OR AUGMENT$ OR RECOVER$ OR TECHNIQUE$).TI,AB.
9 (7 OR 8).TI,AB.
10 5 AND 6 AND 9
11 TRIAL$.TI.
12 RANDOMLY.AB.
13 PLACEBO.AB.
14 (RANDOMIZED OR RANDOMISED).AB.
15 TRIAL$.AB.
16 11 OR 12 OR 13 OR 14 OR 15
17 10 AND 16
Appendix 7. Linguistics Abstracts Online
LAO searched 1985 to January 2007
Terms used to search LAO:
dysarthria AND child or children
Appendix 8. PsycINFO search strategy
PsycINFO searched, via SilverPlatter, 1872 to January 2007
#18 (((rehabilitat* or therap* or train* or management or assist* or measure* or assess* or remedia* or augment* or recover* or
technique*)) and ((child* or girl* or boy* or pre school* or preschool* or adolescen* or teen*)) and ((dysarth* or dysphon* or anarth* or
dyspros* or aphon* or dyston*) or (ataxia) or (“Speech-Disorders” in MJ,MN) or (“Dysarthria-” in MJ,MN))) and ((“Clinical-Trials”
in MJ,MN) or ((randomized or randomised) in AB) or (( (trial*) in TI )or( (randomly) in AB )or( (placebo) in AB )))
16
WHAT’S NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 22 February 2007.
Date
Event
Description
12 May 2008
Amended
Converted to new review format.
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 4, 2006
Review first published: Issue 3, 2008
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
Angela Morgan had the original idea for the review. Angela Morgan and Adam Vogel contributed to all drafts of the review. They
developed the search strategy in concert with Joanne Abbott, TSC of the Cochrane DPLPG.
Both authors contribute to study selection, study assessment, data extraction, data entry, analysis and the final writing of the review.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None known.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
• Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia.
External sources
• No sources of support supplied
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW
The methods section has been updated to reflect changes recommended regarding the Cochrane Collaboration’s new tool for assessing
risk of bias (Higgins 2008).
17
INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
∗ Speech-Language
Pathology; Adolescent; Brain Injuries [∗ complications]; Dysarthria [etiology; ∗ therapy]; Language Therapy
MeSH check words
Child; Humans
18

Intervention for dysarthria associated with acquired brain

Transcription

Similar documents

Document 6448226

Dysarthria: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches

Speech and language therapy for dysarthria due to non-

Dysarthria Differential diagnosis and treatment of dysarthria in children

O.R.I.A. Osservatorio Ricerca e Innovazione Aziendale

ContourGlobal acquires Fibrominn litter

Jumpin` Jammi Jumpin` Jammin` Pyjama Party Pyjama Party

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Dysarthria

CLASSIFIEDS@cochrane.greatwest.ca